FA.No.431/2008 against CD.No.86/2006 District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

Between:

Golden Multi Services Club of Golden Trust Financial Services,

Head Office, S.B. Mansion, 16,

R. N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata

Rep. by its Manager.

…Appellant/O.P.No.1.

And

1.Chelpuri Bixapathi, S/o.late Mallaiah,

   35 years, Occ: Making Pots,

   R/o.Sarwapuram (V), Dwarakapet Post,

…R1/Complainant.

2.The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

   Rep. by its Regional Manager,

   Regional Office at Room Nos. 608 & 609,

   II Floor, White House, Begumpet,

   Hyderabad.

3.The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

   Rep. by its Manager, Opp. Public Garden,

   Green Square Plaza Building, Near ICICI Bank,

…R.2 and R.3/O.Ps.2 and 3.

Counsel for the Appellant        : Mr.S.Raj Kumar.

Counsel for the  : R.1 Served. None appeared.

                                                   Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by opposite party No.1 against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal, directing it to pay Rs.2

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that his son Chelpuri Mallaiah during his life time took a personal accident insurance policy on 16.07.2005 for the period commencing from 08.08.2005 to 07.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.  While so, he died on 22.09.2005 due to snake bite for which a case in Crime No.176/2005 was registered under Sec.174 Cr.P.C.  The Post Mortem examination was conducted at Government Hospital, Narsampet, and the doctor had opined that the death was due to snake bite.  When claim was made, it was repudiated on the ground that his death was not due to snake bite.  On that the complaint was filed claiming Rs.2 

3.         The appellant/opposite party No.1 resisted the case.  It alleged that the policy was issued covering the risk of assured.  However, it was only a facilitator.  After receipt of intimation, the papers were submitted to the Insurance Company, which in turn repudiated the policy.  There was no deficiency of service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.         Opposite parties 2 and 3 equally resisted the case.  While admitting the issuance of policy, they alleged that the death was not due to snake bite.  In fact no information was received about the accident.  The complainant was not entitled to the amount and therefore it was repudiated by letter dated 24.04.2006, and therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.10, while opposite parties 2 and 3 filed affidavit evidence of Asst.Manager (Legal) and got marled Ex.B.1 and B.2.

6.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the deceased died due to snake bite, evidenced under Exs.A.1 to A.3 viz., FIR, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report respectively, and by virtue of the terms of the policy, he was entitled to the amount of Rs.2

7          Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal contending that it was only a facilitator and the liability should not have been mulcted on it.  There was no deficiency in service on its part. 

8.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

9.         It is an undisputed fact that the son of the complainant had taken a policy covering the risk of his life for Rs.2  It is also not in dispute that he died of snake bite, evidenced under Ex.A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 viz. FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report and Final Report respectively.  The only ground on which the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim was that the death was not due to snake bite.  In the light of the irrefutable documentary evidence, it can be said that the death of the complainant’s son was accidental and the Insurance Company has to pay Rs.2  The learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 across the bar represented that the amount was paid by the Insurance Company on a petition filed by the complainant, pursuant to the orders of the District Forum in PP.No.50/2007.  Having received the amount on 18.02.2008, the complainant has passed a receipt and the P.P. was closed. 

10.       The only contention that was taken by the appellant is that it being a facilitator, it should not have been mulcted with the liability.  In view of the fact that the entire amount covered under the order was paid by the Insurance Company, the question of liability does not arise.  No doubt the District Forum ought not to have passed order against opposite party No.1, it being a facilitator.  When the claim was submitted, it has forwarded the same to the Insurance Company being a facilitator.  There is no question of deficiency in service on its part. 

11.       In the circumstances, the order of the District Forum as far as opposite party No.1, the appellant herein, is concerned set aside, and the appeal is allowed. 

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DtVvr.